The Grand Strand Expressway An Alternative to the Proposed I‐73 to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina Prepared for South Carolina Coastal Conservation League Prepared By: P O Box 750 16 Beaver Meadow Rd #3 Norwich, VT 05055 802‐649‐5422 [email protected] 25 March 2011 The Grand Strand Expressway A Fiscally and Environmentally Responsible Alternative to I­73 Highway in South Carolina Introduction The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) has been advancing the construction of a new interstate highway, I‐73, between the Rockland NC bypass and Myrtle Beach. There are two Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) that evaluate the impacts of this new freeway for the northern (north of I‐95) and southern (I‐95 to SC 22) sections. While the southern section of I‐73, from I‐95 to the Myrtle Beach area, is the highest priority, both sections are the subject of wetlands permitting. In this report, the primary focus is on evaluating alternatives for the southern, higher priority section of I‐73. However, there is also discussion of the northern section of I‐73 in South Carolina, and of the corridor as a whole. The proposed I‐73 Interstate Highway connecting I‐95 with the Myrtle Beach area will be a costly project, and result in environmental impacts to the region’s fragile wetlands ecosystem and other aquatic and terrestrial resources. The EIS identified greater connectivity between I‐95 and Myrtle Beach as a primary need for this project, but only examined a new interstate highway as the solution. However, there are numerous variations of roadway design that could be applied to the same purpose which could greatly reduce the costs and environmental impacts. These alternatives should be considered by the SCDOT before it proceeds further in the planning, design and permitting of this significant investment. This report provides several alternative concepts for consideration. I­73 Background The EIS cites “congressional intent” as a primary reason for only considering interstate highway construction to meet the needs of this project. The new highway proposed between I‐95 and the Myrtle Beach area would be part of a larger “corridor” as defined in legislation as “Priority Corridor 5”, as follows: A. I‐73/74 North‐South Corridor from Charleston, South Carolina, through Winston‐Salem, North Carolina, to Portsmouth, Ohio, to Cincinnati, Ohio, to termini at Detroit, Michigan and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. The Sault Ste. Marie terminus shall be reached via a corridor connecting Adrian, Jackson, Lansing, Mount Pleasant, and Grayling, Michigan. Since this legislation initially passed, the corridor definition has been modified by Congress to terminate Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. The following graphic shows the configurations of these corridors. Smart Mobility Inc. Page | 1 The Grand Strand Expressway: An Alternative to I‐73 March 11 Excerpt from map showing Corridor 5, which is the designated routes for I‐73 and I‐74. There are several important things to note from the above map, which was prepared in April 27, 2006. 1) The I‐73 and I‐74 corridors are closely intertwined. Constructing full interstate highways along both corridors would be redundant, excessive, result in unnecessary environmental impacts, and be wasteful of public and/or private funds. Currently, both North Carolina and South Carolina are proceeding with separate studies for each corridor, and neither considers the potential of the other corridor in their analysis. 2) The above map indicates (correctly) that I‐73 is no longer planned through Ohio and Michigan. These states have both dropped the interstate corridor from their long range plans for both fiscal and environmental reasons. The states of Michigan and Ohio are both fulfilling the congressional intent of Priority Corridor 5 by improving existing roadway corridors. The legislative description of this as a priority corridor does not in any way constrain or require the states to construct a new interstate highway. 3) Another factor that is not considered in the EIS is the redundancy with the proposed I‐74 corridor in North Carolina. This corridor is nearly parallel with the proposed I‐73, but this is not considered in defining the need for or consideration of alternatives in the EIS. Smart Mobility Inc. Page | 2 The Grand Strand Expressway: An Alternative to I‐73 March 11 TSM (Transportation System Management) Alternatives Were Not Studied in the EIS There are currently several routes that connect I‐95 to the Myrtle Beach area, with the Route 38/501 corridor being the most heavily traveled. Providing an improved connection to I‐95 does not require an interstate highway, and there are significant opportunities to improve the existing conditions through additional strategic investments in the existing corridor, which could include intersection improvements, grade separated interchanges, and some bypass segments where appropriate. A set of improvements to existing corridors has the potential to have nearly all of the same benefits of the proposed interstate highway at a fraction of the cost, and with far less impact to the environment. The following map shows that there are several existing corridors that run parallel to the proposed I‐73, which could be upgraded to meet the needs of this project. In particular, there are several corridors of four lane roadways parallel to the southern I‐73 section in South Carolina, which could provide the basis for a TSM alternative. Smart Mobility Inc. Page | 3 The Grand Strand Expressway: An Alternative to I‐73 March 11 The EIS’s single focus on a new interstate highway eliminates numerous opportunities to reduce environmental impacts and save taxpayer money. The states of Michigan and Ohio are intending to fulfill congressional intent through modest improvements to existing corridors, an approach that should be included in this EIS essentially as a “TSM” alternative. Federal guidance states that TSM alternatives should be included in environmental documentation, including in cases where a new road is proposed as a “connecting link”, such as this I‐73 EIS. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) also clearly states that projects that propose a roadway on new alignment in a rural area should examine the potential of upgrades on existing roads to address the needs. While the above discussion relates primarily to major projects in urbanized areas, the concept of achieving maximum utilization of existing facilities is equally important in rural areas. Before selecting an alternative on new location for major projects in rural areas, it is important to demonstrate that reconstruction and rehabilitation of the existing system will not adequately correct the identified deficiencies and meet the project need. (FHWA Environmental Toolkit, http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/impta6640.asp#alts, accessed 2/16/2011 5:56:26 PM Transportation System Management must be included as an alternative or design option where applicable. http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmpdo.asp, accessed 9/20/2007 4:09 PM Because it lacks a TSM alternative, the EIS is not comprehensive, and should be amended before further environmental permitting is undertaken. An Alternative: The Grand Strand Expressway An expressway does not have a single definition, but many state departments of transportation have their own working definition of an expressway. In general, an expressway is a four lane divided roadway, with access limited but not completely controlled, and a combination of some at‐grade intersections with grade‐separated interchanges at the major junctions. A Grand Strand Expressway could be constructed primarily by upgrading existing roadways, and could possibly include some short segments of new roadway where bypasses are required. The SC 38/501 corridor between I‐95 and SC 22 has had many upgrades in recent years, providing a foundation for additional improvements to create a continuous expressway. The North Carolina DOT has upgraded many corridors to an expressway1 as an alternative to full interstate highway standards as a more affordable and more easily implemented project design. The benefits of the expressway option provide far greater flexibility as implementation can unfold in stages, which is much more difficult when constructing a limited access highway on a new alignment. The cost of an expressway will be far lower than an interstate highway, as the amount of property acquisition would be considerable lower due to the smaller footprint and right‐of‐way costs. This would also reduce the environmental impact of the corridor improvements, as very little new construction through undisturbed areas would be required. An expressway could take advantage of innovative intersection designs, which are currently being used very successfully in North Carolina along several rural expressway corridors. The North Carolina 1 http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/tpb/SHC/facility/Expressways/ Smart Mobility Inc. Page | 4 The Grand Strand Expressway: An Alternative to I‐73 March 11 Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has completed a comprehensive research program on “superstreet” design, which could be applied to the Grand Strand Expressway to improve the safety and efficiency of the corridor’s at‐grade intersections. Superstreet Intersection Design The North Carolina DOT has conducted detailed research on “superstreet” intersection designs along both suburban arterial and rural expressway corridors, and found that these design techniques have promise to improve safety and capacity of intersections2,3.